How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

[otseng]

From the On the Bible being inerrant thread:

How can you trust something that's written about god that contradictory, contains errors and just plain wrong at times? Is there a logical way to do so, or do you just want it to be god's word so much that you overlook these things like happens so often through the history of christianity?

The Bible can still be God's word, inspired, authoritative, and trustworthy without the need to believe in inerrancy.

For debate:
How can the Bible be considered authoritative and inspired without the need to believe in the doctrine of inerrancy?

While debating, do not simply state verses to say the Bible is inspired or trustworthy.

----------

Thread Milestones

• Case study of Hezekiah
• Start discussing global flood / Flood Model summary
• Recap arguments of authority of the Bible
• Start discussing Tower of Babel / Tower of Babel summary
• Start discussing archaeology / Philosophy of science / Origin of alphabet / End of discussion on archaeology
• Start discussing cosmology / Concluding cosmology
• Start discussing Shroud of Turin / Summary top TS imaging theories / Created DefendingChristianity.com and TS subforums / Shroud of Turin summary
• Start discussing Bible and resurrection
• Start discussing the Messiahship of Jesus / Messiahship of Jesus wrap up
• Start discussing Old Testament ethics
• Summary argument of atheism and morality / God basis for objective morality
• Start discussing genocide / Genocide summary argument
• Start discussing slavery / Slavery summary argument
• Start discussing homosexuality / Homosexuality summary argument
• Old Testament ethics summary argument
• Start discussing philosophy / Summary argument on philosophy
• Start discussing creation of universe / Summary argument universe was created

[William]

[Replying to otseng in post #4109]

You appear to be arguing that anything which cannot be seen (such as a voice without a body being heard) cannot be considered "Real".

Again, I would consider it to be perceptually real, but not actually real. The voices do not represent actual entities that exist apart from her mind.

Are you claiming then that anything to do with mindfulness is false?

Otherwise, why are you arguing that these are perceptually and not actually real?
Are you saying that such is not possible? For example, that unseen minds do not exist and therefore cannot interact with human minds?

Because my belief is entirely consistent with God not being deceptive.

Given that is your belief, you should be able to * dovetail that with the concept we exist within The Creator Mind (God).

You already stated the 3 theories are not the same, so they cannot be harmonized.

While I agreed with your providing of those 3, that it was to show the three theories were different enough to warrant categorization, I do not recall stating they couldn't be harmonized. I do however recall stating (along the lines) that they can only be aligned in the framework of (3)

Creator Mind Theory (as you named it) being that which aligns differences into a coherent wholeness.

If the universe is real, then it's consistent with a God that does not deceive or mislead. However, if we are in God's mind, then God would be deceiving and misleading us.

Please support your claim.

[Gen 1:1 KJV] 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

[Col 1:16 KJV] 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

[Heb 11:3 ESV] 3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

[Jhn 1:3 ESV] 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

It doesn't say God created a simulator and we are beings inside a simulator.
I'll add it also doesn't say we are in God's mind.

That is not the point you are trying to make when you claim "if we are in God's mind, then God would be deceiving and misleading us", is it?
Are you perhaps arguing that since it is not recorded that the creation spoken of in the script provided is all happening in The Creator Mind, that therein is the supposed "Deception"?
(Otherwise I fail to see the significance of the passages you are using to back your belief that in order for The Creator to be non-deceptive, is to create a real object outside of itself.)

I see no deception in aligning those passages with the idea we exist within The Creator Mind.

How is one to tell? How does the brain in vat proverb provide an answer to my question?

I think fundamentally, intuitively we believe the universe we live in is actually real. We are not dreaming it or even thinking we're actually in a simulation. But we live our lives as if everything is actually real.

Thus, the vat proverb can be dismissed. In dismissing it, we still have (3) because therein what we are experiencing is actually real.
Thinking that anything which exists within one's mind is "false", and extending that to include The Creator Mind seems to be overstepping the mark (as far as I can tell) as who are we humans to dictate such a thing and proclaim it as "true".
Rather, I will continue with the idea that everything within The Creator Mind is - by default - Real...since it is The Creator Mind.
This theory is extended upon and summarized with the following.

"In the framework of the Creator Mind (TCM), the universe is conceived as existing within TCM's consciousness. TCM engages in an exploration and refinement of its own mindfulness through the diverse forms it inhabits within the universe. As TCM progresses deeper into creation, there is a heightened sense of forgetfulness experienced by the consciousness within these forms, obscuring prior states of mindfulness. Examples such as tool use, problem-solving abilities, social cooperation, self-awareness, and learning and adaptation across various species highlight the intricate interplay between consciousness, cognition, and behavior, offering glimpses into TCM's evolving journey and mindfulness within the universe's creation."

None of that suggests in any way that the whole process is "False" because it is "happening with a Mind" (and not just any mind, but The Creator Mind itself).

Yes, we've been over this. They share similarities and differences. Only if 1 and 2 have no differences would they be the same. The way 2 is different from 1 is our perceptual reality is different from actual reality. If we are in a simulation, everything we perceive is not actually real. There is no actual physical keyboard in front of me right now, but it's just a code running inside a computer giving me the illusion the world I live in is real.

As I have said already mentioned (in response to this observation) the similarity between (1) and (2) is not to do with the idea that everything is false, (2) but with the idea that some mind outside of the universe is responsible for creating said universe. (1)
That similarity has yet to be properly addressed by you in response to my showing said similarity and how your view currently goes along with that particular aspect of similarity.

Given the fact that even moderns have trouble with the idea of existing within The Creator Mind, there are no particular differing factors therein that the passage(s) were only for the audience at that time alone and somehow don't apply to modern audience.
Either audience still require a particular understanding/view in order for the symbolism to be decoded correctly.

If even modern people have trouble understanding your Creator mind theory, then it's even more unlikely to be true.

Quantum String Theory is also hard to understand. Does this signify that you therefore think it belongs under the heading "unlikely to be true"?

How can you justify your position to be true if you have no supporting evidence for it and nobody understands it?

What is there not to understand? The problem you appear to be having isn't in understanding it, but in the veil/curtain you have placed between you (the human personality) and your understanding (mindfulness) of it, in the belief that anything within the mind - including The Creator Mind - is "false".

[otseng]

Then why bring in the topic of philosophy in this thread, via "simulation"? Why not just remain focused on the Bible?

It's another argument for the reliability of the Bible. It provides answers to the major philosophical questions.

How exactly might someone prove that a dude did not actually rise over 2K years ago?

That's the burden of skeptics to make that case. Myself, I've already presented evidence Jesus did rise from the dead through the evidence of the Shroud of Turin.

[otseng]

Are you claiming then that anything to do with mindfulness is false?

Otherwise, why are you arguing that these are perceptually and not actually real?
Are you saying that such is not possible? For example, that unseen minds do not exist and therefore cannot interact with human minds?

Things we think in our mind can either be true or false. And things that we think in our mind can either actually exist or not exist.

While I agreed with your providing of those 3, that it was to show the three theories were different enough to warrant categorization, I do not recall stating they couldn't be harmonized.

Different variations can be presented to "harmonize" them. For example, we can all be in a computer simulation inside God's mind. Or we can be in the Creator's mind inside a computer simulation. If we are in a computer simulation, it could be we are inside an actual universe or in another computer simulation.

I think the question is what is our immediate universe that we are in? It'd have to be one of the three options.

That is not the point you are trying to make when you claim "if we are in God's mind, then God would be deceiving and misleading us", is it? Are you perhaps arguing that since it is not recorded that the creation spoken of in the script provided is all happening in The Creator Mind, that therein is the supposed "Deception"?

Yes, I'm making that point. Both what the Bible states and our intuitive perception of the world is that it is actually real.

If we are in God's mind, why would not the Bible state that?

Rather, I will continue with the idea that everything within The Creator Mind is - by default - Real...since it is The Creator Mind.

This is circular logic.

As I have said already mentioned (in response to this observation) the similarity between (1) and (2) is not to do with the idea that everything is false, (2) but with the idea that some mind outside of the universe is responsible for creating said universe. (1)
That similarity has yet to be properly addressed by you in response to my showing said similarity and how your view currently goes along with that particular aspect of similarity.

Don't know what you're asking for.

Quantum String Theory is also hard to understand. Does this signify that you therefore think it belongs under the heading "unlikely to be true"?

Your theory is not equivalent to quantum theory or string theory. Both are widely researched and accepted theories.

The problem you appear to be having isn't in understanding it, but in the veil/curtain you have placed between you (the human personality) and your understanding (mindfulness) of it, in the belief that anything within the mind - including The Creator Mind - is "false".

Wouldn't that be the case for everyone except you?

[POI]

Then why bring in the topic of philosophy in this thread, via "simulation"? Why not just remain focused on the Bible?

It's another argument for the reliability of the Bible. It provides answers to the major philosophical questions.

But it's not and it doesn't. If you want to bring philosophy into the equation, specifically about 'simulation', I already refuted your argument. (i.e.) We are now in version (x) of the given simulation. We no longer experience glitches for the reason(s) I've already stated, and I could give more. If you want to continue with this exercise, we can. But, we both already agree that we are not likely in a simulation. Is this where 'faith' specifically comes in?

I also see that this 'simulation' argument adds/subtracts nothing to the veracity of the Bible's claims. The Bible's claims stand and fall upon their own merits. And thus far, I have not seen anything which gives the Bible any veracity, other than to argue that (maybe) a homeless preacher was once executed for 'blasphemy/other'?

That's the burden of skeptics to make that case.

I'm asking (you). How might one go about proving that Jesus did not rise 2K years ago? Is all one needs to do is to prove that the TS is a fake?

[William]

[Replying to otseng in post #4113]

You appear to be arguing that anything which cannot be seen (such as a voice without a body being heard) cannot be considered "Real".

Again, I would consider it to be perceptually real, but not actually real. The voices do not represent actual entities that exist apart from her mind.

Are you claiming then that anything to do with mindfulness is false?

Otherwise, why are you arguing that these are perceptually and not actually real?
Are you saying that such is not possible? For example, that unseen minds do not exist and therefore cannot interact with human minds?

Things we think in our mind can either be true or false. And things that we think in our mind can either actually exist or not exist.

"Things"? We were discussing voices in particular. We were not discussing whether what the voices say can be true or false but whether such voices should be considered not to be real.
True or False? Real or Imagined?

Different variations can be presented to "harmonize" them. For example, we can all be in a computer simulation inside God's mind.

Please explain this concept as a possible contender for consideration.

Or we can be in the Creator's mind inside a computer simulation.

How is that different from your first variation offered here?

If we are in a computer simulation, it could be we are inside an actual universe or in another computer simulation.

Please explain how we can be in a computer simulation and also in an actual universe.

I think the question is what is our immediate universe that we are in? It'd have to be one of the three options.

And I showed how believing in a creator which exists outside of the creation is similar to (2) in that (2) also has it that way.

The differences between (1) and (2) is that (2) does not make any declarations re the nature of entity mind(s) which created this universe.
Those who believe (1) have to declare their faith that any such creator is truthful, as you have done in arguinging for (1) being true. That is a necessary proviso in order to believe in (1)

That is not the point you are trying to make when you claim "if we are in God's mind, then God would be deceiving and misleading us", is it? Are you perhaps arguing that since it is not recorded that the creation spoken of in the script provided is all happening in The Creator Mind, that therein is the supposed "Deception"?

Yes, I'm making that point.

Yet clearly the Bible does not say anything about a lot of things, so your point would have to be that - for example - dinosaurs cannot have ever existed since there is no mention of them in the Bible. Either that OR, because they were not mentioned in the Bible, the God of the Bible is being deceptive.

Both what the Bible states and our intuitive perception of the world is that it is actually real.

Neither of those is contrary to position (3). (3) has it that everything which can be experienced, is real because it all exists within The Creator Mind.

If we are in God's mind, why would not the Bible state that?

The assumption might be that those reading the stories would - through intuitive perception - understand it that way.
Or it might be that people would assume that IF we are in The Creator's Mind, THEN the creator would be deceptive and the Bible is attempting to present The Creator Mind to the wayward human mind, as beyond reproach.

You see, even in your own arguments you are thinking God's mind would behave in the same manner that wayward human minds behave, and in that - declaring "if we are in God's mind, then God would be deceiving and misleading us".
As I pointed out in an earlier post....the minds of gods - while knowing good and evil - do not think and thus do not behave in the same manner that humans with the same knowledge behave.
Post #4072
Indeed. What makes you think/gives you the impression there could be anything FALSE within The Creator Mind?
Why is it that one would think in such terms about such a concept?

IF
The Creator Mind = The Real
THEN
Anything created within said mind would be TRUE. The idea that there is even an option of "true or false" is missing the mark.

As an example of missing the mark (sin), the Garden Story offers that the Serpent lied in that it did not convey the whole truth, but only part of the whole truth, thus "lying" while speaking truth.

This is confirmed by the Creator-Character in the story...where The Serpent claimed that the human couple would "be as gods, knowing good and evil." and Creator-Character claiming (And the LORD God said), "Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil"

In the sense of the wording, The Creator Mind is not telling the gods that the humans are now "gods" but that the humans know the difference between a "good" and an "evil".
The difference is that the gods not only know what is "good" and what is "evil", but that they also know the optimum way forward in relation to such knowledge. They know what to do in Truth, in relation to having that knowledge.

The humans were not "like"/did not "become like" the gods in that regard, so in that sense, the Serpent lied by not telling the whole truth. The whole truth would have been along the lines of "your eyes shall be opened but you will not "be like the gods" in your knowing (of good and of evil).

Rather, I will continue with the idea that everything within The Creator Mind is - by default - Real...since it is The Creator Mind.

This is circular logic.

I agree but also point out that I am using your premise that The Creator Mind is not deceptive (always true/speaking the truth) and applied this to assert that everything within The Creator Mind must be true and real.
If someone also claims that the Bible is the word of God therefore everything within the Bible must be true and real because the premise is that God is not deceptive (always true/speaking the truth) that is circular logic too...
Such is circular if it relies solely on the premise (such as the Bible is the word of God) to assert the truth and reality of everything within it. This argument would be circular because it presupposes the truth of the Bible in order to establish the truth of its contents.

As I have said already mentioned (in response to this observation) the similarity between (1) and (2) is not to do with the idea that everything is false, (2) but with the idea that some mind outside of the universe is responsible for creating said universe. (1)
That similarity has yet to be properly addressed by you in response to my showing said similarity and how your view currently goes along with that particular aspect of similarity.

Don't know what you're asking for.

I am asking for honest understanding.
For starters, I have revised your list in order to make it more acurate.
1. Real Created Universe Theory: Our universe is considered to be actually real and exists as an entity created by a creator outside of our universe.
2. Simulated Universe Theory: Our universe is running inside a simulation, possibly created and maintained by advanced beings or technology.
3. Everything Exists As Real Within The Creator Mind Theory: Everything exists entirely within The Creator Mind and everything that exists is real.

(These descriptions succinctly capture the essence of each theory and their respective perspectives on the nature of reality and existence.)

I am pointing out that both theories (1) and (2) involve the concept of an external creator mind shaping the universe, despite their differences in other aspects and you are avoiding addressing that similarity, other than making the claim that God is not deceptive (always true/speaking the truth, which (3) also assumes to be the case.

Are you being non deceptive and true/speaking the truth by saying that you don't know what I'm asking from you? I hope that isn't the case and that you will acknowledge my argument about (1) and (2) being similar, as valid and (3) as being understandable enough that one considers it possible/possibly true.

Quantum String Theory is also hard to understand. Does this signify that you therefore think it belongs under the heading "unlikely to be true"?

Your theory is not equivalent to quantum theory or string theory.

Which is easier for you to understand - Those theories or the Everything Exists Within The Creator Mind theory?

Both are widely researched and accepted theories.

Well funded, yes.
I hope you are not using argumentum ad populum as your basis here...

The problem you appear to be having isn't in understanding it, but in the veil/curtain you have placed between you (the human personality) and your understanding (mindfulness) of it, in the belief that anything within the mind - including The Creator Mind - is "false".

Wouldn't that be the case for everyone except you?

You may be incorrect in asserting that I am the only person who thinks (3) is true.

Given the argument that (3) is complex and hard to understand, one can reason as to why it was not specifically worded in the bible that we exist within The Creator Mind.
However, that does not mean the Bible specifically claims otherwise or that things the Bible does say, do not point us to that conclusion.
In essence, I am suggesting that while the Bible may not overtly endorse theory (3) in its exact formulation, there may be elements within its teachings or narratives that can be interpreted to support or align with this perspective, even if they require deeper exploration and understanding.

One of many examples I can produce from the Bible in support of (3) is
Colossians 1:16-17 (NIV):
"For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together."

Also the verse you previously used to support (1)

Rev 21:1
And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

Isa 65:17
For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

2Pe 3:13
Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.


Let's evaluate how theory (3), the "Everything Exists As Real Within The Creator Mind Theory," might interpret these Bible verses.

In theory (3), which posits that everything exists as real within The Creator Mind, these verses would likely be interpreted as affirming the reality of the new heavens and earth within the consciousness or mind of the Creator. Rather than viewing them as symbolic or metaphorical representations, theory (3) would see these descriptions as reflecting an actual transformation or renewal of reality within The Creator Mind to do with/in relation to how human minds "see/experience" things.

In this interpretation, the "new heavens and a new earth" described in Revelation, Isaiah, and 2 Peter would be understood as concrete manifestations of the Creator's will or intention, existing as real within The Creator Mind. This aligns with the overarching premise of theory (3) that everything within The Creator Mind is real and tangible, including any renewal or transformation of reality described in religious texts.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #4114]

For the sake of clarity.

If you are not arguing for;

1. Real Created Universe Theory: Our universe is considered to be actually real and exists as an entity created by a creator outside of our universe.
2. Simulated Universe Theory: Our universe is running inside a simulation, possibly created and maintained by advanced beings or technology.
3. Everything Exists As Real Within The Creator Mind Theory: Everything exists entirely within The Creator Mind and everything that exists is real.

What theory are you arguing for?

Also to note, philosophy is integral and fundamental to both theistic and atheistic views.
For example, atheism is based upon the philosophy that we exist within a thing which was mindlessly created, which in turn is based on the premise that one lacks belief in God(s) because there is no evidence of God(s) to be recognised.
(One could also argue that one believes the universe was mindlessly created on the premise that there is no evidence of a creator, and thus why lack of belief (in the existence of) God(s) is a relevant position to hold. But the premise doesn't alter the outcome so the order of premise is here nor there.)

Point being, both your and otseng's and my own agreement that we cannot exist within a simulation (re (2) on the list) is based upon the different philosophies we each follow and where you part company with otseng and I is that we see evidence of The Creator Mind where you do not.

Further to that (and specifically why I am asking) is that I (from my position (3) see no reason to include your position on the list otseng provided and I revised in order to make it more accurate.
I see otseng is including your position as somewhat relevant,, given that he is engaging with you about this) even that he has yet to include your position on his list.

The takeaway I get from this is that I should ask you what your position is on the matter that I should therefore include your argument(s) as somehow relevant and add your position to that list.

[POI]

What theory are you arguing for?

You and I share the same material/physical reality. We are still in the discovery phases for things not yet known about our 'universe'. Which of our (3) positions require the most 'faith' - (you, me, or Otseng)? Thus far, all prior unknowns, which were previously thought (or) assumed (or) asserted to have been the works of some "invisible source", have all been discovered not to be. Hence, it seems it would take more faith to continue assuming your two propositions (i.e.) <invisible mind - (William) <or> god(s) - (Otseng)> is/are behind it all, verses to instead assume all things yet undiscovered are going to later be the results of natural processes alone, or "materialism".

Also to note, philosophy is integral and fundamental to both theistic and atheistic views.

I'm not going to argue that philosophy does not have its place. But it does have its limitations. Without 'science', philosophy reaches a stopping point and is often times never validated or falsified without 'science's' need for the verification process of such philosophical thought. With "science", we can continue to propel forward, where-as with philosophy, maybe not-so-much?

When there is a new problem to be solved, we rarely hear anyone say, "quick, let's ask our resident philosopher."

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #4117]

What theory are you arguing for?

You and I share the same material/physical reality. We are still in the discovery phases for things not yet known about our 'universe'. Which of our (3) positions require the most 'faith' - (you, me, or Otseng)? Thus far, all prior unknowns, which were previously thought (or) assumed (or) asserted to have been the works of some "invisible source", have all been discovered not to be. Hence, it seems it would take more faith to continue assuming your two propositions (i.e.) <invisible mind - (William) <or> god(s) - (Otseng)> is/are behind it all, verses to instead assume all things yet undiscovered are going to later be the results of natural processes alone, or "materialism".

All fine therein.
My question has to do with adding your position to the list otseng originally compiled and I since improved upon.

What philosophical theory is your position representing re Philosophies (1) (2) (3) that a heading can be given by you for the position (4) to be added/included on the list?

I'm not going to argue that philosophy does not have its place. But it does have its limitations. Without 'science', philosophy reaches a stopping point and is often times never validated or falsified without 'science's' need for the verification process of such philosophical thought. With "science", we can continue to propel forward, where-as with philosophy, maybe not-so-much?

I disagree. Physical "science" is a particular "science" focused upon what can be observed and studied directly. "Science" involving study of mind/mindfulness is valid and holds a different philosophical framework than that of purely physical "science".

Different "propellants" but "going forward" nonetheless (as nature dictates).

When there is a new problem to be solved, we rarely hear anyone say, "quick, let's ask our resident philosopher."

The reasons for doing or not doing so may vary, according to the motivations which accompany each/all philosophies.

Physical "science" may not cover that in its own philosophies having it that their philosophers keep "mindfulness and its elusive nature", out of their particular philosophy. After all, what is there to consult with, since the philosophical belief is that we exist within a mindless/mindlessly created thing?

So my question has to do with ascertaining the value of consulting atheistic opinions or even counting them as relevant to the discussion at hand (Philosophies (1) (2) (3)). What does the position add to the overall if it is not relevant enough to even place of the list?

[POI]

All fine therein.

I actually asked you a question here. Were you planning on answering it? Below is my position.

(i.e.) While omitting Mr. Tyson's 'theory', which of our (3) positions requires the most 'faith' - (you, me, or Otseng)?

What philosophical theory is your position representing re Philosophies (1) (2) (3) that a heading can be given by you for the position (4) to be added/included on the list?

I honestly have not thought about this enough to give a concise and formal one, but I will start by providing the following, which may or may not need to be tweaked or amended?

1) Otseng - Real Created Universe Theory: Our universe is considered to be actually real and exists as an entity created by a creator outside of our universe.
2) Mr. Tyson - Simulated Universe Theory: Our universe is running inside a simulation, possibly created and maintained by advanced beings or technology.
3) William - Everything Exists As Real Within The Creator Mind Theory: Everything exists entirely within The Creator Mind and everything that exists is real.
4) POI - Real Natural/Materialistic Universe Theory: Our universe is considered to be actually real and has always existed in one form or another, as matter/material can neither be created nor destroyed; and all changes not demonstrated to be done directly by naturalistic and/or material minds have and do happen by way of natural processes alone.

I'll give you an example of option 4)... Compare a forest filled with wild trees, as compared to a human planted tree farm. The former looks to have come from no material mind, where-as the later looks to have come from a material mind. Why? The former has no rhyme or reason, and all trees are of differing ages and species. The later are planted in organized rows and are also trees which are the same age and same species, as designated by the verified material mindful designer of the tree farm.

I disagree. Physical "science" is a particular "science" focused upon what can be observed and studied directly. "Science" involving study of mind/mindfulness is valid and holds a different philosophical framework than that of purely physical "science".

We shall see

[otseng]

But, we both already agree that we are not likely in a simulation. Is this where 'faith' specifically comes in?

Not sure why you keep asking about faith. Faith comes in when we cannot prove a claim. Do you disagree?

I also see that this 'simulation' argument adds/subtracts nothing to the veracity of the Bible's claims.

What we're trying to answer is the philosophical question of the nature of reality and looking at all the proposed explanations. If the most likely explanation aligns with the position of the Bible, then it adds to its veracity.

That's the burden of skeptics to make that case.

I'm asking (you). How might one go about proving that Jesus did not rise 2K years ago? Is all one needs to do is to prove that the TS is a fake?

Yes, I've proposed that before as one way in this thread:

Actually, the resurrection is falsifiable. And I'm even upping the ante by saying if the TS is falsified, then the resurrection is falsified.